That’s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. Rather than question the hadiths that contradicts the Quran, they abrogated any Quranic verses that contradicted the hadiths. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority (to force people to follow Islam and its commands) was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. According to these sects, God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this concept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler where he can either let a prisoner go free or order his execution. By creating stories about the prophet, they now can transfer that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. Through out Islam's history, Sultans have invaded other territories and imposed taxes and traded in slavery claiming that this is the Sunnah and Shariah. This is all very sad as the taking of someone’s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw. A good example of that is how the sects believe that those who steal should have their hand amputated sometimes for as little as ten dinars. A hand for a hand (proportional justice) became a hand for ten dinars (disproportionate justice).

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws abundantly.  So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial and therefore they tended to avoid them. They knew questions might be raised as to why these laws are not in the Quran etc.

Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed many aspect of the Sunni/ Shia sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But the clerics also understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder because people expect that capital punishment should be stipulated in the Quran. But this wise tradition was broken. That’s very unfortunate as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the Sunni/Shia sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That’s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink in the Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then prophet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that’s very sad.

Bigmo wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 5:51am:


'They', 'they' ?

Don't you know, if the Koran is inerrant ?



Bigmo,

If you are a moslem, and if the above is correct, then shouldn't moslems 1st decide amongst themselves [i.e. shouldn't moslems AGREE amongst themselves], what ISLAM really teaches - to the moslem - before moslems seek to invite infidels to come into your [moslem] community ?

Or is that too difficult ?

To me, if moslems reject this [my] suggestion, then moslems are only seeking to spread confusion [about ISLAM] in the world.




Bigmo,

If you are a moslem, please, take your religion, and make a worthy society - with your religion - so that all moslems can see your virtue.

But please, seek to make your worthy [moslem] society, 1st, in a moslem land, e.g. perhaps Saudi Arabia ?

So that all of us infidels can stand in awe, of your [moslem] perfection among men!

Then we infidels would willingly convert to your religion.

Can you please include a link or URL when you copy and paste large tracts of text from elsewhere? If you have difficulty posting it, try removing the www part.

Bigmo wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 5:48am:





"It is Allah Who made out of the things He created, some things to give you shade; of the hills He made some for your shelter; He made you garments to protect you from heat, and coats of mail to protect you from your (mutual) violence. Thus does He complete His favours on you, that ye may bow to His Will (in Islam).
But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message.
They recognise the favours of Allah; then they deny them; and most of them are (creatures) ungrateful.
One Day We shall raise from all Peoples a Witness: then will no excuse be accepted from Unbelievers, nor will they receive any favours.
When the wrong-doers (actually) see the Penalty, then will it in no way be mitigated, nor will they then receive respite."
Koran 16.81-85

"We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger..."

Sure.         

At an 'appropriate' time, quote the 'soft words' from the Koran, ambiguous words to speak, so as to confuse the [IGNORANT, UNINFORMED] Kafir.



"ISLAM, is peace."       .....too!         




+++








Google;
jihad is the pinnacle of islam




Quote:

http://muwahhidmedia.com/2013/06/13/physical-jihad-is-the-pinnacle-of-islam-and-...






"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
Koran 4.88, 89


"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
Koran 4.95

i.e. Religious fighting is an obligation for all moslems.
Allah views with disdain those who avoid this obligation to him.
see also, Koran 2.76-78,  Koran 9.73-85




"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.
To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;-
Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers [are themselves 'hypocrites',  i.e. not moslems]...
...Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-"
Koran 4.136-140


and more, and more, and more.....

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:45am:


To me too, Y. If these Moslems don’t agree with you, who will?

Unfortunately, many here have a neoconish understanding of Islam. The post 9-11 Islam narrative. In many ways I can not blame them. However I will say this, what I was saying was understood by many secular historians who saw Sharia law as a later development in Islam and not a true representation of the Islam Muhammad and the early generations of Muslims practiced.

Prof Herbert Berg PhD summarized some of the Western secular historians interpretations of the development of Sharia and the vast majority of secular historians saw Sharia law as a later development. My main concern however is what the Quran has to say.

However I detected some have raised the issue of the Quran and warfare. The Quran only recognizes defensive war and not offensive war as the sects understand it.

Many religions become in time what is called organized religions and develops an orthodoxy. Islam was no different. However we must not assume that either the Quran or  Muhammad understood the religion the way many Muslims do.

I will elaborate on the Quran and warfare later as I am busy now.

Regards.

Quote:


According to some Muslims here, Muhammed was waging war on Mecca in the early days by robbing caravans and murdering traders traveling to and from Mecca. How does this fit in with the 'defensive war' narrative? How do you even make sense of 'defensive war'? Muhammed certainly appeared to think that the best defense was a strong and unrelenting offense. He even took to winding up his Jewish allies, to help him identify which ones weren't totally loyal to him.

Quote:


Didn't this happen in the time of Muhammed? He was pretty organised. How does the organisation of Muhammeds successors differ from Muhammed's? Did Muhammed not intend an Islamic Caliphate?